Re: RELIGION Religious and political sig lines (was Missionaries)

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> On 6/19/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > >> > Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

> > >> > dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

> > >> > same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

> > >> > most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

> > >> > to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

> > >

> > > ³This is just plain siliness. Your epistemological understanding of

> > > empiricism is an assumption, a presupposition, and thus a dogma.

> > >

> > > Chris²

> > >

> > > As a joke, that¹s pretty good. I fear that it¹s not, however.

>

> Gene,

>

> Other than the fact wrote it :-) why do you find it funny? You

> essentially agreed to what is saying in a post back on December

> 6, 2004 when you were interacting with me on the subject of science

> and the necessary presuppositions to do science (although I realize

> you would not call those assumptions " religious " ):

Well, I'm familiar with the so-called 'religious point of view' as talked about

by Wittgenstein.

I guess I see as saying something rather simple. He sees no evidence that

there is a god, and so therefore doesn't believe in one. The 'dogma' would have

to refer to the fact that one should base one's belief on experience and not on

faith, or on a set of supernatural explanations of the universe. This is facile,

I think, but I think overly so - hence the joke reference. In other words, I

don't think that reticence to believe something for which there is NO evidence

(of the usual sort) is the same thing as believing a set of facts that have been

passed on and may have no criteria at all for their belief.

So - yeah - I do see this a kind of clever joke because (as a joke) it calls

attention to this tension between the fact that yes - as Wittgenstein said, " all

explanations have to end somewhere " and hence ultimately they are religious in

the sense that sense (though not in the sense that it is a belief in a

supernatural being), and the fact that everyone, including knows exactly

what was saying. The meaning is quite clear, and I have no problem with it.

>

> [GS] Also, you make the following claim: " Science quite properly depends on a

> number of assumptions and presuppositions that are NOT scientific, yet

> without such assumptions the scientific enterprise could not proceed.

>

> [MM] These underlying assumptions, as the Dutch philosopher Dooyeweerd

> pointed out, are pre-theorectical, and thus *religious* in nature. "

>

> [GS] Obviously the first part is true. Science MUST depend on

> presuppositions and

> assumptions that are not themselves scientific. But is the sense that you

> call these religious the same sense that we call, say, Christianity a

> religion?

hmmm - interesting reading this - it seems to be in agreement with what I just

said.

>

> Just curious.

>

>

>

> /I think you and ought to get together over a glass of scotch at

> the next WAPF convention. Who knows, you might find each other's

> company enjoyable, or at the very least entertaining :-))

>

> //maybe you both can make it up for the 2008 convention I'm planning

> to hold on the west coast.

> --

> " Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

> Luther

>

[Guest guest]

I can't agree with the sig line being part of the topic. My signature

has my web site but isn't part of the topic.

You could talk about a person's signature statement in a personal

email; posting it to the list is possibly off topic but groups go off

in tangents every once in a while which makes it interesting and

enlightening.

On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

>> My point was that there is something inherently different for the

>> moderator

>> of the list (you were the temporary moderator, right) to post a

>> blatantly

>> dogmatic Christian signature line.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately I have to agree. There's plenty of other WAP-y spinoff

lists where everyone plays nice, but I don't learn as much from them

as I do with this one.

Naomi

" Without contraries there is no progression. "

W. Blake

On 6/19/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Yes, it is. I think the nutritional information on the list would be

> seriously compromised if all the people who engage in pointless

> off-topic argument weren't on the list.

>

> Chris

> On 6/19/07, iv_adb <iv_adb@...> wrote:

> > I understand that as well. I used to get these emailed to me but switched

> to

> > reading online

> > long ago to avoid the messages filling up my email. I guess all this off

> > topic, pointless

> > argument is more important, though.

[Guest guest]

Here here

On Jun 18, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

>

>> My point was that there is something inherently different for

>> the moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator,

>> right) to post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

>

> I disagree. As long as I've been on this list (6 years, I think?) I've

> seen

> every type of sigline under the sun and have never seen anyone asked to

> change it or remove it. Whether or not someone with a sigline

> moderates this

> list is completely irrelevant, IMO. I couldn't care less. It has

> nothing to

> do with his/her ability to moderate the list.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Simply no one has claimed that a moderators sigline affects his ability to

moderate the list. So, I guess, Here, Here!

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Parashis <artpages@...>

> Here here

>

> On Jun 18, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

>

> >

> >> My point was that there is something inherently different for

> >> the moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator,

> >> right) to post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

> >

> > I disagree. As long as I've been on this list (6 years, I think?) I've

> > seen

> > every type of sigline under the sun and have never seen anyone asked to

> > change it or remove it. Whether or not someone with a sigline

> > moderates this

> > list is completely irrelevant, IMO. I couldn't care less. It has

> > nothing to

> > do with his/her ability to moderate the list.

> >

> > Suze

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:38 PM, wrote:

> On 6/19/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

>> Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

>> dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

>> same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

>> most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't

>> pretend

>> to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

>

> ,

>

> Am I missing something? Is not evolution, at least the run of the mill

> variety, an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, among

> other things? Or are you not an evolutionist?

>

>

> --

Technically, (biological) evolutionary theory sensu strictu doesn't

directly address the possible origin of the universe - it focuses on

how and why organisms (species, populations, genomes, genes etc)

change through time.

-jennifer

[Guest guest]

-

> That's nonsense. You hold to a number of premises/assumptions that are

> not given to empirical analysis, especially regarding your theory of

> knowledge, and by which you then proceed to attempt to understand the

> world. Those indutibles are pre-theoretical, and therefore *religious*

> in nature.

Yes and no. We do make the anti-Kantian assumption that when we both

speak of the color blue in the sky, for example, we're seeing much

the same thing, and when we describe an experiment and someone else

repeats it successfully and we discuss it, we're actually talking

about the same thing instead of one person dissolving bananas in

hydrochloric acid and the other shaking a baby until it screams.

That is not, however, a matter of religious faith. It is an

application of reason and logic to the data of the senses, coupled

with an assumption that the senses are reliable (by which I mean

consistent) and communication is valid. Religious faith, however, is

belief in that for which there is no empirical evidence. The two are

not the same even if they share certain philosophical similarities on

some but not all axes.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> Am I missing something? Is not evolution, at least the run of the mill

> variety, an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, among

> other things? Or are you not an evolutionist?

I am an evolutionist, but if you think evolutionary theory is an

explanation of the origins of the universe, I can't even begin to

imagine what sort of nonsensical description of evolution you've been

exposed to.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> I guess I see as saying something rather simple. He sees no

> evidence that there is a god, and so therefore doesn't believe in

> one. The 'dogma' would have to refer to the fact that one should

> base one's belief on experience and not on faith, or on a set of

> supernatural explanations of the universe. This is facile, I think,

> but I think overly so - hence the joke reference. In other words, I

> don't think that reticence to believe something for which there is

> NO evidence (of the usual sort) is the same thing as believing a

> set of facts that have been passed on and may have no criteria at

> all for their belief.

Yes, exactly.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> Technically, (biological) evolutionary theory sensu strictu doesn't

> directly address the possible origin of the universe - it focuses on

> how and why organisms (species, populations, genomes, genes etc)

> change through time.

ly there's nothing technical about it -- that's exactly what the

theory of evolution is.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol said

>

> Yes and no. We do make the anti-Kantian assumption that when we both

> speak of the color blue in the sky, for example, we're seeing much

> the same thing, and when we describe an experiment and someone else

> repeats it successfully and we discuss it, we're actually talking

> about the same thing instead of one person dissolving bananas in

> hydrochloric acid and the other shaking a baby until it screams.

I've actually always assumed that by referring to the color blue, it was

referring to dissolving babies in hydrochloric acid. that probably explains some

very strange conversations that I've had...

[Guest guest]

I just love all of these new people coming here and ORDERING us how to

behave....

Note the 'RELIGION' tag.....you can avoid religion and politics if you must.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Sheilah Worrell " <crsheilah@...>

> said: Are we not all here to discuss and share nourishing concepts?

> and I can't agree more. I just joined this group and nearly all I've read

> has been about religion! Enough already, take it offlist!

>

> --

> Sheilah in Costa Rica

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just love all of these new people coming here and ORDERING us how to

behave....

Note the 'RELIGION' tag.....you can avoid religion and politics if you must.

I don't have any problems with religion or those who chose not to have

religion as a part of their lives. I just thought fighting over a religious sig

line is useless. I am a new member yes, but I was not intending to order anyone

around. I was airing my opinion as all those who have been members longer than

I were. My opinion is live and let live. Life is richer when we share and

enjoy friendships no matter who we are. Your behavior is really your business

not mine. I would be a fool to think I could order anyone around on a

group. I am really here to deepen my understanding of native foods and methods

of healing.

Thank you for your insight and honesty.

---------------------------------

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Guest guest]

Nearly ALL of it? Could I have a count on that?

I find all thoughts to be nourishing. A lot of food nutrition seems

trivia but I don't think it worthless.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Sheilah Worrell wrote:

> I just joined this group and nearly all I've read

> has been about religion!

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

On 6/20/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > I guess I see as saying something rather simple. He sees no

> > evidence that there is a god, and so therefore doesn't believe in

> > one. The 'dogma' would have to refer to the fact that one should

> > base one's belief on experience and not on faith, or on a set of

> > supernatural explanations of the universe. This is facile, I think,

> > but I think overly so - hence the joke reference. In other words, I

> > don't think that reticence to believe something for which there is

> > NO evidence (of the usual sort) is the same thing as believing a

> > set of facts that have been passed on and may have no criteria at

> > all for their belief.

> Yes, exactly.

I posed this question a few days ago under the subject line God and

Empirical Evidence and have not yet gotten an answer. Just in case

either of you missed the post, I would like to know, in order to

confer some meaningfulness to your statement that there is " no

evidence " for God, what you would consider, of the realm of evidence

that is theoretically possible to observe, 1) suggestive evidence of

God and 2) conclusive evidence of God.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I posed this question a few days ago under the subject line God and

> Empirical Evidence and have not yet gotten an answer. Just in case

> either of you missed the post, I would like to know, in order to

> confer some meaningfulness to your statement that there is " no

> evidence " for God, what you would consider, of the realm of evidence

> that is theoretically possible to observe, 1) suggestive evidence of

> God and 2) conclusive evidence of God.

I haven't answered this yet because it's a complex question requiring

(and deserving) a complex answer, and at least until my Tuesday pitch

meeting is done with, I don't have time for anything very complex

other than working on " Buried " . As it is I've found far too many

ways to procrastinate...

We also might first have to agree (at least approximately) on what

constitutes " God " , or at least discuss the issue.

-

[Guest guest]

On 6/24/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I haven't answered this yet because it's a complex question requiring

> (and deserving) a complex answer, and at least until my Tuesday pitch

> meeting is done with, I don't have time for anything very complex

> other than working on " Buried " . As it is I've found far too many

> ways to procrastinate...

Ah ok, no problem. I was just making sure my post didn't get lost in

the works somewhere.

> We also might first have to agree (at least approximately) on what

> constitutes " God " , or at least discuss the issue.

Good point. Perhaps when you have the time, you could propose the

first definition, since you made the affirmative statement that there

is no evidence for God, and it is my intention to find out what you

mean by that.

Chris